TOO GOOD FOR GA?
I don’t think the statistics will back you up there, over the past 30 years, the majority of wide body hull losses had one or more pilots being ex-military, not only places like Korea, the majority of Fedex and UPS wide body hull loses as well.
The following users liked this post:
On the jet trainer I was flying at Academy, if not out of spin by 5000ft, eject
That's it.
Let's see about this about this perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed
The 1991 RAAF Boeing 707 crash occurred on 29 October 1991, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and all five crew members. The aircraft, serial number A20-103 with the callsign Windsor 380, was on a training flight involving a demonstration of the aircraft's handling characteristics at minimum control speeds in a "double asymmetic" condition, with two of its four engines at idle power. During the non-approved manoeuvre, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin before crashing into
In civil aviation you do that only in simulator
Now let's see about this fire bomber
It was diving between mountains to drop water above the fire. This can change the balance of the aircraft rapidly plus the microclimate induced by the fire temperatures
Low altitude ops in unstable wind conditions with rapid change in aircraft balance.⁸
Yes, you see it everyday in civilian operations
That's it.
Let's see about this about this perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed
The 1991 RAAF Boeing 707 crash occurred on 29 October 1991, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and all five crew members. The aircraft, serial number A20-103 with the callsign Windsor 380, was on a training flight involving a demonstration of the aircraft's handling characteristics at minimum control speeds in a "double asymmetic" condition, with two of its four engines at idle power. During the non-approved manoeuvre, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin before crashing into
In civil aviation you do that only in simulator
Now let's see about this fire bomber
It was diving between mountains to drop water above the fire. This can change the balance of the aircraft rapidly plus the microclimate induced by the fire temperatures
Low altitude ops in unstable wind conditions with rapid change in aircraft balance.⁸
Yes, you see it everyday in civilian operations
Last edited by RichardJones; 27th Aug 2023 at 17:01.
You can share these statistics
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
20 Posts
I don't have time right now but it would be interesting to see how many of those Australian accidents were newbies heading up north and getting into strife in the wet season. Not all of Australia is benign all the time. Even in Perth we can get some wild weather in winter, poor vis due to smoke in summer etc - things that could trap the unwary VFR pilot..
Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.
The following users liked this post:
Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.
So we all know proper training will give you the physical skills to be a good stick and rudder pilot. But, proper training also involves instilling an attitude. If the instructor takes risks during training the candidate will be likely to take risks and so on. If the instructor pushes weather during training, the candidate is likely to do the same, with much less experience. Then there is just instructors who wash over critical things like weather awareness, dealing with high traffic, how to increase situational awareness and free up excess capacity. It might be that they are inexperienced or just lazy, or chasing money and not taking enough time for proper ground instruction to cover these things.
So when you consider that a large amount of accidents are pushing weather, end of daylight, and so on, these are all things instilled in training as an attitude. Landing with excessive crosswind, tailwind, accepting speed deviations when landing in performance critical airstrips. These are all results of training, both skills and attitude. Botching an engine failure, stall spin accidents, are all skills based errors, where the pilot has placed themselves in a scenario training would have said don't go. Even a lot of mechanical failures in flight can come back to a lack of training in pre-flight procedures, walk around effectiveness and attitude towards the health of the aircraft in general. Pilot took off with water in the tanks, pilot took off with the wrong tanks selected, pilot took off with something wrong... which afterwards was obvious and showed a lack of thorough pre-flight checks. Running a tank dry and crashing (multiple recent events) is directly a training issue, improper techniques and discipline instilled, taking off on a runway where too much is going on, again an attitude and awareness issue.
Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. A good attitude will have the pilot seek re-training when they know they are rusty, whether it's self education in books or practice, or going as far as booking a flight with an instructor for a re-fresh.
Some things a pilot may never be really tested on in life until a few thousand hours. So we are not just talking about someone fresh out of flight school either. This is why instructors learn about primacy and how pilots tend to revert to their original training in stressful situations.
With the right ATTITUDE, a pilot, combined with training and experience will avoid the situation that leads to an accident. And yes, ATTITUDE can be taught.
BTW military pilots are not trained to be 'killing' machines, quite the opposite, fighter/bomber pilots are trained to survive and make independent decisions in fluid situations, yes there is obvious a component that will teach you how to deploy the weapons on board to maximum effectiveness, but there are many considerations before this happens. The training is focused on survival, and getting home after each mission. Modern military aircraft are expensive and will not be thrown away in battle for some blood thirsty kill fest, especially if you are in the non combatant aircraft, which make up most of the air forces, such as transports/tankers, special operations and surveillance. Most of the training and operational control will be to avoid the enemy where possible, just like a civilian avoids enemies like weather...
Ground forces are a different matter, front line ground forces and Spec Ops are trained to kill, and face to face if necessary, this is a very different concept to dropping a missile/bomb from a remote location and has very different mental repercussions.
Last edited by 43Inches; 28th Aug 2023 at 01:22.
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
I deleted an earlier post, written late while under the influence of too much good malt. Here is the polite version.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of airline or military instructor experience, as applied to GA. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources, and rarely had issue with 250 hour cadets fresh out of school, 5000 hour ex RAAF fast jet jocks, or 20,000 hour airline pilots (though the latter sometimes needed firm handling to eradicate former SOPs). Also, GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. They may not initially have the manipulative skills of the other groups (too much time watching, not enough driving), but they are often most receptive to learning new tricks. By the time they get their commands - regardless of where they got their experience - most airline pilots will be on a par. The few who didn’t make it? Well, part of my job was to identify and weed out the incompetent ones, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...). As for which ones made the best airline instructors (sorry 43" SUPERViSORY pilots), often those recently appointed to command, regardless of origins, were best, because their own upgrade process was still fresh. Which supports the theory that a newly-minted G 3 could be the better option for teaching basics. Note to 43" et al: I said "could be".
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of military instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA. because their stuff is not obscure enough.
For RAAF aspirants to civvie street, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out more clearly than they do, and removed room for dispute. The UK CAA makes it very clear. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA list almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though (being an advocate for benevolent dictatorship and tough love) was the preamble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing)..At least it keeps down legal costs.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of airline or military instructor experience, as applied to GA. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources, and rarely had issue with 250 hour cadets fresh out of school, 5000 hour ex RAAF fast jet jocks, or 20,000 hour airline pilots (though the latter sometimes needed firm handling to eradicate former SOPs). Also, GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. They may not initially have the manipulative skills of the other groups (too much time watching, not enough driving), but they are often most receptive to learning new tricks. By the time they get their commands - regardless of where they got their experience - most airline pilots will be on a par. The few who didn’t make it? Well, part of my job was to identify and weed out the incompetent ones, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...). As for which ones made the best airline instructors (sorry 43" SUPERViSORY pilots), often those recently appointed to command, regardless of origins, were best, because their own upgrade process was still fresh. Which supports the theory that a newly-minted G 3 could be the better option for teaching basics. Note to 43" et al: I said "could be".
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of military instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA. because their stuff is not obscure enough.
For RAAF aspirants to civvie street, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out more clearly than they do, and removed room for dispute. The UK CAA makes it very clear. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA list almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though (being an advocate for benevolent dictatorship and tough love) was the preamble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing)..At least it keeps down legal costs.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 28th Aug 2023 at 13:16.
I deleted an earlier post, written late while under the influence of too much good malt. Here is the polite version.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be some people's view that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of recognition of military qualifications for civil instructor ratings. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources and don't have issue with 250 hour cadets or 5000 hour fast jet jocks. Also GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. By the time they get their commands , regardless of where they came from, most will be on a par. The others? Well, that was my job to weed them out, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...).
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of miltary instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA.
To remove all doubt, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out in a similar tabular format to the UK CAA. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA show almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though was the pre-amble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing).. At least it keeps down legal costs.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be some people's view that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of recognition of military qualifications for civil instructor ratings. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources and don't have issue with 250 hour cadets or 5000 hour fast jet jocks. Also GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. By the time they get their commands , regardless of where they came from, most will be on a par. The others? Well, that was my job to weed them out, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...).
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of miltary instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA.
To remove all doubt, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out in a similar tabular format to the UK CAA. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA show almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though was the pre-amble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing).. At least it keeps down legal costs.
Well that's relatively easy to disprove.
American Airlines 587
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR0404.pdf
Air France 447
https://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090...p090601.en.pdf
American Airlines 587
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR0404.pdf
Air France 447
https://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090...p090601.en.pdf
The biggest whiners on here are people who have never been military QFIs.
Whatever you reckon about your best mate, he does not meet the quals to waltz straight onto G1 with the instructor privileges he was seeking. Simple. All he needed was to seek out a suitable mentor to guide him through the process. head down and arse up and he probably would have been there in a year.
The following 3 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)
DRE - . DRE keeps banging on about arrogance etc. Unfortunately for you mate, it makes not a shred of difference whether or not, legally, Clarkey should be given his grade 1 based his DRE Arrogance rating, but rather it is to be based on his past instructional military expertise experiences. Leave your baseless emotions out of this discussion.
You have a real s...t attittude against military pilots - that's plain for all to see.
Can you imagine the reverse, if an experienced GA Pilot joined the RAAF and then started demanding his prior civilian experience get him accelerated qualifications and went to an adjudicator if he didn’t get his way?! He’d be laughed off the base. I’ve known some pilots with years of GA or other civilian flying experience to have subsequently joined the military as a pilot. All of them were told very clearly that their previous civilian experience would not grant them a single favour and they were to now do things 100% the military way, any claims of “but this is how we did it in GA” and they would be kicked out. All off them accepted this new environment and adapted to it.
I am privy to Clarkey's story on LinkedIn, I can assure you, that there is not an IOATA of arrogance displayed on that thread.
Now if he had just done the minimum time instructing, got his Grade 1 and then with the full understanding of what being a civilian flying instructor takes then he could have submitted a proposal to simplify the system from within for future RAAF pilots attempting to transition into an instructor role, as a Grade 1 instructor now himself.
Instead he’s spent years and plenty of money to achieve no outcome.
I’ll give you an example. Up until recently Type 1 diabetics were prohibited from holding a Class 1 medical. One former airline pilot who lost his career because of this decided he wanted to change the system, but CASA initially said no. He didn’t cry foul and run to some tribunal. He studied a medical degree, became a GP and then a DAME, and spent several years writing Type 1 diabetes protocols to submit to CASA Avmed for review. It took time and effort but eventually he succeeded because he worked within the system rather than attempting to force a change from the outside.
Last edited by dr dre; 28th Aug 2023 at 03:30.
The following 3 users liked this post by dr dre:
Isn't that a great example of someone who did force change from the outside?
And what is the AAT for, if not to seek review of administrative decisions of bureaucrats? Sometimes the AAT finds that CASA made the correct and preferable decision. Sometimes the AAT finds otherwise.
Isn't going to the AAT working within the system? The right to go to and the process for going to the AAT was all explained to Clarke in the letter CASA sent to him, explaining its refusal decision.
And what is the AAT for, if not to seek review of administrative decisions of bureaucrats? Sometimes the AAT finds that CASA made the correct and preferable decision. Sometimes the AAT finds otherwise.
Isn't going to the AAT working within the system? The right to go to and the process for going to the AAT was all explained to Clarke in the letter CASA sent to him, explaining its refusal decision.
The following users liked this post:
In this case the applicant wanted the rules changed to grant him a position with less than the minimum requirements, if he followed the diabetes example he would’ve worked legally to achieve his G2 then G1, and then having more understanding of the civilian instructor world and the full knowledge of what it takes to be a G1 he could’ve worked constructively with CASA to change the system.
The following users liked this post:
Nobody should just 'accept' rules, especially if the rule is unjust. At least our legal system allows us to challenge rules that may be unjust or unfair. Even things as straight forward as road rules can be challenged if they are applied in the wrong sense. That is you can beat simple fines by knowing not only the rules but the reasoning and standards by which they are set.
Some of you chaps need to get a grip, military or civil, who cares, you'll find good, questionable and bad in both arenas, have been on both sides of the divide. For those deriding the military I can recall landing a civil helo at Mascot and hovering to the QF hangar for loading aboard a QF 747 Combi, the route took us past the TAA finger and a DC-9 crew went bananas about a GA aircraft operating on THEIR AIRPORT delaying THEIR pushback. Guess Ansett must have been ahead on the race to the threshold. 
I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)
I'm not an instructor so do not feel qualified to make comments on that aspect.
The following users liked this post:
I recall a former RAAF CFI (or similar executive position) entering civvy-street to run a small country aero club. He tried to run it like an air force school and the place ended up collapsing but not before everyone from engineers to the refueller had been alienated. Just an aside.
Maybe the applicant should've requested at own expense a test for RPL. If he could adapt to the "rigours" of teaching civilians to fly then give him the qualification. I don't know how it works exactly but recognition of prior learning is "a thing."
Maybe the applicant should've requested at own expense a test for RPL. If he could adapt to the "rigours" of teaching civilians to fly then give him the qualification. I don't know how it works exactly but recognition of prior learning is "a thing."
No I see it as completely different. The diabetes change happened because someone took a lot of study and effort and then worked constructively with the regulator to change it.
In this case the applicant wanted the rules changed to grant him a position with less than the minimum requirements, if he followed the diabetes example he would’ve worked legally to achieve his G2 then G1, and then having more understanding of the civilian instructor world and the full knowledge of what it takes to be a G1 he could’ve worked constructively with CASA to change the system.
In this case the applicant wanted the rules changed to grant him a position with less than the minimum requirements, if he followed the diabetes example he would’ve worked legally to achieve his G2 then G1, and then having more understanding of the civilian instructor world and the full knowledge of what it takes to be a G1 he could’ve worked constructively with CASA to change the system.
CASA decided Clarke does not hold the relevant equivalent qualifications under the current rules. Clarke went through the process established for the very purpose of providing external review of that decision, and now all the Monday morning quarterbacks are providing life coaching to Clarke for free. If the AAT had agreed with Clarke, one wonders what those Monday morning quarterbacks would be saying.
I think you'll find that the efforts towards changing the rules will now begin, because Clarke isn't Robinson Crusoe.
The following users liked this post:
Monday morning quarterbacks are providing life coaching to Clarke for free. If the AAT had agreed with Clarke, one wonders what those Monday morning quarterbacks would be saying.
And as far as the life coaching is concerned, what's wrong with it? Wish I'd taken a bit more notice of some of the advice I've been given over the years. Would have saved me a lot of time, money and angst.
There are a bunch of things that should be recognised by CASA for military aircrew that are not at present - instrument ratings being the big ones. .
I don't know how it works exactly but recognition of prior learning is "a thing."
The following users liked this post:
